It depends whether the president holds any power or not. Would our president be like the US president, Obama, who is both chief of the armed forces, head of the government and head of state, or would our president be like the current monarch with no powers and still our most powerful leader would be the Prime Minister?

If it's the latter then I don't really care. I'm not interested in electing a mere symbol for the sake of being able to. I don't mind being a republic. I wouldn't fight to become a republic but nor would I stop the UK, or England depending on whichever status, from becoming a republic. A lot of people love the Queen. She's has character and represents our history. An elected head of state would be another face which would divide the country because they would be standing for a party and so we'd be more united under a Queen than a President.

I liked the way the BBC justified Britain's 70% support for the monarchy as "irrational" and "in our DNA" on the news last night. Irrationality cannot support something in any way. Its like saying ignorance is fine, if not an admirable characteristic. If this is not propaganda I don't know what is.

(Original post by Snagprophet)
It depends whether the president holds any power or not. Would our president be like the US president, Obama, who is both chief of the armed forces, head of the government and head of state, or would our president be like the current monarch with no powers and still our most powerful leader would be the Prime Minister?

If it's the latter then I don't really care. I'm not interested in electing a mere symbol for the sake of being able to. I don't mind being a republic. I wouldn't fight to become a republic but nor would I stop the UK, or England depending on whichever status, from becoming a republic. A lot of people love the Queen. She's has character and represents our history. An elected head of state would be another face which would divide the country because they would be standing for a party and so we'd be more united under a Queen than a President.

I don't understand how the queen represents our history- should we presume that the history of Britain is something to be proud of. She merely inherits a position through a system which has been used for hundreds of years. This does not necessarily make it the best system, conversely if we suppose that political systems should be dynamic, it is likely that this is not the best way to appoint a head of state. Secondly, is it not what she represents- the British people giving several million of taxpayers money to support an already rich family without merit- that is somewhat regressive? By no means am I saying that she doesn't work hard, but an elected figurehead could do the job equally well, as well as representing something more desirable. A historian, or an otherwise interesting scholar, I feel would be more appropriate to convey Britain internationally in a new light.

No, the monarchy, as has been said many times over, pays for itself in tourism. Plus the constitutional role of non-interference is very important, this is the current problem with the proposed house of lords reforms, an elected head of state and/or house of lords has a much bigger mandate to intervene in the political process which has been fine tuned over many years to not have this interference. Plus, they represent us abroad very well, and set a great example for other nations with a monarchy. If you look at the supposed 'best' and most democratic countries in the world, you'll find most of them to be constitutional monarchies with a similar system to Britain (see, Scandanvian countries). Also, changing things for the sake of change is a pretty ridiculous argument, we've had an elected parliament for hundreds of years, why not change that to an unelected one? Unless it's clear you can make it better, why change something that isn't broken?

(Original post by Tommo3)
No, the monarchy, as has been said many times over, pays for itself in tourism.

Debates about the existence of the monarchy concern the British constitution, so it's a bit silly to bring in tourism. Aso, Visit Britain, the main tourist board of the UK, haven't even bothered to collate statistics on the monarchy as an attraction, which does lend itself nicely to the fact that the monarchy isn't really a pull to tourists.

Plus the constitutional role of non-interference is very important, this is the current problem with the proposed house of lords reforms, an elected head of state and/or house of lords has a much bigger mandate to intervene in the political process which has been fine tuned over many years to not have this interference.

This is ignoring the exemption of the Royals from the Freedom of Information Act and the many documented cases of Prince Charles's interference with many political ongoings, I assume. Also, the Queen may have only ceremonial power, yes, but it's the existence of this power in the first place that gives the UK government so much unchecked power. The historical power of the monarch has been transferred to the cabinet and the PM. Obama can only dream of having as much control over US politics as David Cameron has in the UK.

Plus, they represent us abroad very well, and set a great example for other nations with a monarchy.

In what way? I'm not necessarily saying they're bad examples, but do they do anything really that different from what a delegate or even a president could do?

If you look at the supposed 'best' and most democratic countries in the world, you'll find most of them to be constitutional monarchies with a similar system to Britain (see, Scandanvian countries). Also, changing things for the sake of change is a pretty ridiculous argument, we've had an elected parliament for hundreds of years, why not change that to an unelected one? Unless it's clear you can make it better, why change something that isn't broken?

You'll find republican movements in every single one of those countries.

Also, we're not arguing for change for the sake of it. The existence of the monarch's power, even if only central, is the reason why our government can get away with so much. They have so much unchecked power. And besides, do you really need me to tell you why an elected parliament would be better than an unelected one? If so, don't use that shameful example.

(Original post by Tahooper)
Yeah, let's become a republic, like America!

What a wonderful country America turned out to be

I've heard this argument so much from monarchists.

One bad republic means nothing, the fact that America is a republic has **** to do with its behaviour, your argument is literally as stupid as me saying that the Spanish fascists were monarchists therefore monarchy equals fascist dictatorship, but I'm glad you said this as it shows monarchists have no real substance to their arguments.

I don't agree on the monarchy having power, however I do like the fact we still have a Queen and royal family who are on the back of our coins. They have a rich history, attract tourism, yet have absolutely no say on policies so it's the best of both

But yeah having a powerful Monarch is not democracy, but the Queen acts as a unifying factor. When she visits Scotland it always reminds me we're in the UK and helps to ensure my vote for Scottish Independance to be a no.

Edit: I chose Republic, but because I like having the Queen maybe I should've chose Constitutional Monarchy?

I'm a republican, but i do like the Queen. Although we have a monarchy which i dislike, I do like our Liz, she's the best for the job. I'd still prefer a proper democracy, and a democratic fully paid house of lords too.